Cited by 447Multimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsSpeech and dialogue systemsVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

Visual Dialog

Das, Abhishek, Kottur, Satwik, Gupta, Khushi, Singh, Avi, Yadav, Deshraj, Moura, Jose M. F., Parikh, Devi, Batra, Dhruv·2017·2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Abstract

We introduce the task of Visual Dialog, which requires an AI agent to hold a meaningful dialog with humans in natural, conversational language about visual content. Specifically, given an image, a dialog history, and a question about the image, the agent has to ground the question in image, infer context from history, and answer the question accurately. Visual Dialog is disentangled enough from a specific downstream task so as to serve as a general test of machine intelligence, while being grounded in vision enough to allow objective evaluation of individual responses and benchmark progress. We develop a novel two-person chat data-collection protocol to curate a large-scale Visual Dialog dataset (VisDial). VisDial contains 1 dialog (10 question-answer pairs) on ~140k images from the COCO dataset, with a total of ~1.4M dialog question-answer pairs. We introduce a family of neural encoder-decoder models for Visual Dialog with 3 encoders (Late Fusion, Hierarchical Recurrent Encoder and Memory Network) and 2 decoders (generative and discriminative), which outperform a number of sophisticated baselines. We propose a retrieval-based evaluation protocol for Visual Dialog where the AI agent is asked to sort a set of candidate answers and evaluated on metrics such as mean-reciprocal-rank of human response. We quantify gap between machine and human performance on the Visual Dialog task via human studies. Our dataset, code, and trained models will be released publicly at https://visualdialog.org. Putting it all together, we demonstrate the first visual chatbot!.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cvpr.2017.121

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Das, A., Kottur, S., Gupta, K., Singh, A., Yadav, D., Moura, J. M. F., Parikh, D., & Batra, D.
Affiliations
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Virginia Tech (US)
Venue
2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2017-07
Pages
1080-1089
ISSN
1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4249013746
Cited by
445
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 78 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 3
FWCI
10.23
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
visual dialogue, visual question answering, human-AI dialogue, chatbots, encoder-decoder architecture, memory networks, decision fusion, mean reciprocal rank

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review